I just ran across this and decided that you guys might want to hear an update.

I LOVE THIS LENS.

In the 2-1/2 months since I got it I've literally used almost exclusively. I had my Nikkor 35mm f/1.8 on for a few minutes (I don't remember why, I'm sure it was a low light thing), but otherwise, this thing lives on my D7100. I often have my backpack (work and other stuff) or my duffel bag (mostly a gym bag but might replace my backpack if I need more room) with me and in both cases, I throw the camera and lens in there and just go. Don't worry about what I might have the opportunity to shoot, with 18-400mm It will pretty much get the shot.

Do I wish it was smaller? Yes. The lens barrel is slightly smaller in diameter than a few of the lenses that I compared it to and surprisingly a couple of millimeters does make a noticeable difference. A little bit of weight off of it would be nice but the D7100 is already heavy like a full frame body, so that's not a big deal, the biggest thing would be if it was about 1" shorter stored (the thing that's different than before is that for some reason I've been really noticing a difference in my pictures with a lens hood so for once I ALWAYS have it with me, adding a little bit of bulk to the front of the lens).

Pros (and I'm sorry, I'm reading some of what I wrote and I make it sound like this lens is performing miracles, it really seems like it. Some of it is that it has inspired me to get better with the camera, but even that is because I'm having a lot more fun with the camera and a lot less disappointment):
- come on, 18-400mm. And all of it is usable. Really. I used to sometimes miss a pic because I had the wrong lens on. I've literally not missed a shot because I didn't have the right lens since I got this (I have missed a handful of shots because I was experimenting with taking pics of the moon and didn't put a setting back when taking pics of my kids, but that was my own fault, I can't blame the equipment.

- The pictures from it just have a nice look.
- I firmly believe that it's not about the equipment but the photographer, but I HONESTLY feel like this lens makes my pictures look better. At the same time having a new toy has me playing with camera settings I've never used before, but some of that is that somehow I'm not getting the marginal and failed pics that I used to. Like I'd bet that I've gotten a usable pic of all my subjects every time except the previous time when I didn't put the settings back. Maybe it's me but it started with this lens.
- things that are normally marginal or failures are working out. The vibration compensation is only rated good for 2.5 steps but I swear that I've pushed it farther than I have with the lenses that I have that are rated for 3 and 4 and gotten more usable shots. I've successfully used this lens at 1/30s and gone after moving subjects at 1/60 and still gotten good shots. At 1/80-1/120s I'm pretty confident I can catch most things. Something about the combination of this lens and my camera body makes me better at holding still and/or tracking my subject even shooting from a bad position. I seem to have much fewer motion blurred pictures
- Same thing with exposure. With the limited wide open range when zoomed you often run out of light, I've honestly shot a lot with the exposure bar way over to the left and gotten quite good pictures.
- nice design. It looks sleek and modern (all black with only white markings), but that comes back to usability. Things just feel right and they're where I want them to be.

Cons:
- it's big for just carrying around, but worth it.
- there is some noticeable distortion around the edges of the picture if you have straight lines there, but almost everything does, and for the zoom range that you get with this it's really not bad
- I'm worried that the cool modern design will show scuffs, but so far it's wearing well and like I said, I just throw it in my bag and go, not even a special bag or in it's own space, usually on top of my gym stuff or in a pocket that gets some spare batteries and some computer stuff.

What shocked me:
- I was on a kick about trying to get a decent pic of the moon with my old Tamron 18-270mm. With everything setup perfect, tripod, tinkering with focus, exposures and settings... I could get some OK pictures of fuzzy craters... with this lens I can really get some usable pictures HANDHELD, with the VC turned on, autofocus and even letting the camera do the exposure (I'm betting that I'd get a good picture with it in full auto, flash turned off but I haven't tried it, I did at one point take a few pictures of the Blood/Blue/Super moon we had with it set where I had it in S with 1/200-1/400 shutter speeds and I got some really decent pictures).

I can't wait for the weather to get warmer and to get out on the reservior with it.

I sold my Sigma and my Tamron 18-270 (though I've had 2 buyers not pay for the Tamron after winning the auction, so it's still in my hands, anyone want it?). I decided to keep my Nikon 18-140 as a backup zoom (and to use on my older camera bodies), my 35mm f/1.8 as a low light lens, and my Nikon 18-55 kit lens for shooting video (I actually have 2 sitting around as well as the 55-200 kit lens that hasn't been on a camera body for years)

I ordered the tamron 18-400... tracking says 8pm thursday...

Well, considering how fast these things are flying off the shelves (numerous stories about people that are now waiting till January to get one and places that I was looking running out of stock in the last day) and the sample pictures + it will do everything I want it to = I pulled the trigger. I'll supposedly have it in my mitts by Friday.

:-)

G2? Wazdat? Based on those weights I'm guessing lenses way outside my budget and skill level?

I do? Which one?

As far as I can tell I want the size and weight of the Nikon but am having a hard time giving up (maybe more accurately, would really use) the 400mm and weather sealing of the Tamron. It doesn't help that I would argue that most of the pics that I screw up are motion blur and that the Tamron is longer, heavier and the VC is only rated good for 2.5 stops vs Nikon's 4 stops. The Tamron would only be better when shooting wildlife, the Nikon would be better most the rest of the time I use the camera, and I'm not sure either would be better with a more dedicated lens.

Right now I feel like my choice is a more practical lens and just figure I will miss some shots with it not having the focal length (nikon) vs a lens that in theory should capture everything the other will and more but I won't be as happy to carry around and will more likely show off my errors (Tamron).

All that said, i wished I had the Tamron 18-400 last night trying to get a pic of the full moon last night, had to do a lot of cropping to see any detail with the 18-270:

At this point, based on my previous experience with lenses in this size range (it looks like it's virtually identical to my nikon 18-140 with the lense not extended), I'm sure that I'd be happy with it size and weight wise, it is reviewed as being sharper everywhere than my existing tamron and my nikon 18-140 with less chromatic aberration. Put all that together I'm positive that I'd be happy with that Nikon 18-300.

For me the question now is if I'd be happier with the Tamron 18-400, which from the quality of the pictures I'm seeing posted I'd be thrilled with, it's just a question if I would find it too bulky for just a carry around lens (which might be a bit of a funny thing if you saw me, I'm 6'4" and 250#, you hand me most things or put me next to most things and they look tiny)

So for you the size/weight change was almost 2x what it will be for me, and I'm pretty used to shooting my old tamron floating in a canoe/kayak or even a moving vehicle at times.

Would you still pick it if you knew you were going to be shooting handheld 98% of the time? With my kids, I really don't like being "that guy" that sets up a tripod in the middle of the school auditorium getting in people's way, so I rarely use one except when I'm setting up something special with low light or something similar. I guess that I might use it more if I had a better tripod.

Really nice shots, you have to click on the downloads to appreciate the textures in those shots, like the small picture of that car is nothing compared to it full screen or even full sized and the textures to the surfaces add a lot to the paint and colors.

I'm curious how you like that lens as a walking around lens? It's on my short list and from pics like these it's clear the quality is there, but I wonder if it's too big/heavy to walk around and use without support. Did you shoot these handheld or with a tripod?

Is your 18-270 the PZD or the older, larger/heavier one?

How do you feel about the size/weight penalty going to the 18-400? Right now it's my top contender, the only thing that is keeping me from pulling the trigger is that I'm worried about it being bigger/heavier then the biggest/heaviest lens I have now that I'm happy to carry around (it's still almost 10mm around smaller and 200g lighter than the Sigma Art lense that I think is just too heavy/bulky) and that I can't seem to find as good a deal on it as some of the others.

Right now second place is the Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-6.3, better IQ than my old Tamron in a slightly smaller package and there are some good deals out there.

First, I understand the deficiencies of a superzoom, I also rarely carry more than one lens and I find that probably close to 90% of the pics I take with any of my cameras are with my old 18-270mm Tamron, not even the slightly smaller/lighter/newer version of that lens but one of the older ones.

I'm also realizing that I have a lot of overlap in lenses and would like to sell 1-3 of them and get something nicer (mostly for my D7100), what I have now:
- Tamron 18-270, this sees by far the most use
- Nikon 18-140, kit lens that I got with the D7100. I rarely use it because it just has a shorter range than the Tamron, is only slightly smaller and doesn't seem to result in as pleasing a picture, I'm not really sure why. Lately, I've been using it a little bit more mostly because it's a little lighter
- Sigma 24-105mm Art. This is a beautiful lens that takes beautiful pictures. It's also massively heavy (almost 2lbs) and between being heavy and being a subset of the range both previous lenses I rarely use it unless I know I'm not going to be carrying it around much and am doing something I know it will be superior for.
- I also have 2 sets of the typical kit 18-55mm and 55-200mm lenses, as well as a 35mm f/1.8 that I don't really consider overlapping with the zooms


What do I take pictures of:
- typical kids/family/life stuff (we all do, right?), this could be done with anything and I change it up, but I like using the Tamron as a "sniper lens" and not have to jocky with other parents/family for the good positions to take pics
- wildlife, mostly from a kayak or canoe, but sometimes walking/hiking. This I will take all the mm I can get and all the sharpness and accuracy I can get out there.
- landscape/architecture. Surprisingly not a lot of wide angle stuff like typical, I like details which I often can't get right up to. I like the Tamron here also
- I've recently played with a lot of moon pics and some of the recent solar eclipse. I got some OK pics but I would have loved more sharpness and less chromatic aberration


What have I been considering:
- Nikon 18-300 f/3.5-6.3- This was and still might be my top contender. I like the size/weight (similar to the Tamron) but I it should have better IQ, especially >200mm
- That got me looking at the Tamron 16-300mm. I love my old Tamron, and this one is supposed to be better in every way. The extra wide angle will likely mean more than the extra 30mm at the big end. The reviews mentioning the lack of sharpness and chromatic aberration especially >200mm scare me some. The weather sealing is nice for use on the water
- All the "photographers" that hate superzooms seem to like the nikon 18-300 f3.5-5.6 better than the newer nikon 18-300. The extra length/weight, 50% more than my old tamron which is slightly more than the smaller nikon and the 16-300 and 2/3 the way to the Sigma Art that I rarely use because it's heavy and has a short range
- Tamron 18-400mm. Again, I like my old tamron, an extra 130mm (almost 200mm in 35mm eq) over my current Tamron would really mean something for a lot of the pictures that I take. It's 120g lighter and about the same size as the bigger nikon, but that's still about 150g heavier than my old tamron and the Nikon I was originally sold on. Again, being weather sealed is nice


So what would you do? Anything else I would consider? The last 2 will likely run me a little more than I had planned...